Appeal No. 2002-2145
Application No. 09/113,808
instance, in developing the here claimed invention. Moreover,
this conclusion is supported by the specification disclosure.
This is because the first five of the eight specification
examples (which form the basis of the here claimed invention) are
focused solely on pest kill or mortality. Indeed, the pest
mortality tested in examples 1 and 4 did not even involve fruit.
Under these circumstances, it is apparent that pest-kill, by
itself, constituted a particular problem with which the
appellants were involved in developing their claimed invention.
For the reasons set forth above and in the answer, we are
unconvinced by the appellants’ argument that the Liston reference
is from a non-analogous art.
We also are unpersuaded by the argument expressed in the
brief and in the Staby declaration that an artisan would not
have been motivated to combine the applied prior art in such a
manner as to result in a method of the type encompassed by
appealed claim 1. As explained in the answer, the artisan would
have utilized Liston’s method of disinfesting insect pests in
food products generally for the purpose of disinfesting pests in
citrus fruit specifically in view of the Florida Entomologist
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007